Defamation of Islam: Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

While USCIRF, Human Rights First and Christian news media dance around their bonfires emitting victory whoops, those with more common sense analyze the resolution and wait for the backfire.  I bring you tidings of the first backfire from International Islamic News agency  . [Emphasis added.]

Informed sources in the OIC General Secretariat in Jeddah stated clarified that the Islamic Group, represented in the OIC, in international fora did not back down from its position, pointing out that the Western countries, which lost all rounds of voting on the previous resolution on anti-defamation of religions, has made a major concession by accepting the new version of the resolution which aims to the same goals of promoting tolerance, non-discrimination and violence based on religion, which is exactly what the OIC is seeking in order to provide a decent living for Muslim communities in the West.

    The OIC did not back down, it was Western Civilization that lost the previous votes and made a major concession.  The new resolution maintains the  same goals as its predecessors.
    
    Return to  http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/Draft_Resolution_Defamation_Religions.pdf, which passed in the HRC last year and study ¶14, 15 & 16.  Exactly what are they demanding?  For those lacking the patience & diligence to do the research, here is my blog post detailing it: Defamation of Religions UNHRC March 25 ’10. The tactical objective of the series of resolutions is national & international legislation criminalizing all questioning and criticism of Islam. 

The sources pointed out that the West’s acceptance of the new resolution reflects an implied admission of a problem already exist within their communities.

    That is a clear restatement of the obvious; there was no need to say it. 

...to put an end to the campaign of hostility to Islam, better known in the west as Islamophobia.

Can you obtain a clue from Allah's word?  From Moe's word??  From Islamic law???

• 2:190. And fight in the Way of Allâh those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allâh likes not the transgressors. [This Verse is the first one that was revealed in connection with Jihâd, but it was supplemented by another (V.9:36)]. 
• 8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.
• 9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. 
  • Sahih Muslim 19.4294 ...If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them...
  • Al-Hedaya Volume II, Book IX, Chapter 1, Page 141: The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the sacred writings which are generally received to this effect.
    • This marginal note found on page 140 sums it up nicely: "War must be carried on against the Infidels, at all times, by some party of the Muslims. "

    What did Allah command Muslims to do?  What did Moe tell them to do?  What does Islamic law say about who initiates & perpetuates the conflict?  Our attempts at self-defense  by raising the alarm are characterized as a "campaign of hostility" but Allah's imperative to conquer us is just, righteous & peaceful.  Yeah, right.

According to the sources, the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had had invited the OIC to lead the efforts with both Washington and the European Union to draft a new resolution to ensure the foundations adopted by the previous resolution, giving a wider range of freedom of expression, but at the same time the sources confirmed that the decision (defamation of religions) has not been abandoned, and it is still valid, and can be resorted to if necessary.

    Our Secretary of State and an NGO are behind the new tactic.  Meet the new resolution, same as the old resolution.  Guess what they will introduce to the General Assembly in September. 

    While we are beset with an implacable existential foe, the best we can muster are Morons & traitors. Western Civilization is in great peril.

   

Sphere: Related Content

Ongoing Serious Implications of Islamophobia

A/HRC/15/53, "Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of  racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Githu Muigai, on the manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular on the ongoing serious implications of Islamophobia, for the enjoyment of all rights by their followers."

    The report, issued 07/12/'10,  is in the form of a 19 page pdf file. It consists of an enumerated list of 91 paragraphs. Yesterday I wrote a post about the Rapporteur's statement introducing the report to the HRC. In this post I will deal with what I consider to be the most important segments of the report.

    The report is a reference to five classes of cases "pertaining to Human Rights Council resolution 13/16".  The cases are classified as follows.

• acts of violence or discrimination, or incitement thereto, against individuals on the basis of their religion or belief
• attacks on religious sites
• religious and ethnic profiling
• religious symbols
• negative stereotyping of religions, their followers and sacred persons

    Physical assaults and vandalism are covered under domestic laws.  I see no need to get excited about the rare instances. The perpetrators should be found out, prosecuted and punished under existing statutes.

    When most criminal acts of a certain type are perpetrated by members of a known set, common sense directs law enforcement's attention to members of that set.  Most acts of Islamic terrorism are perpetrated by Muslim men between the ages of 17 and 40.  Only a Muslim, a damned fool or a traitor would object to giving extra scrutiny to members of that class when screening for security risks in transportation.

    Questions concerning religious symbols are raised in  ¶87 on page 18.  "The Special Rapporteur takes the view that the following questions should be kept in mind when assessing the legality of such bans or restrictions:"

• is the construction, use or display of certain religious symbols constitutive of the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief?

A search of the Qur'an, hadith & Reliance of the Traveller turned up a few mentions of minarets in Ibn Kathir's Tafsir and hadth; they related to the descent of Jesus. I found no legal requirement for the construction of minarets.  There is blessed good reason for banning them. Dr. Andrew Bostom explains in Europe News.

The venerable Brill Encyclopedia of Islam (EOI) entry on minarets makes plain that minarets are a political statement of Islamic supremacism. Interestingly, given current Turkish Erdogan’s provocative statement while mayor of Istanbul -- (the full statement was quoted in a NY Times story by Stephen Kinzer from 2/16/1998: "The mosques are our barracks, the domes are our helmets, the minarets are our swords, and the faithful are our army”), cited by opponents of minaret construction in Switzerland — the observations from the Brill EOI about the Ottoman perspective on minarets are of particular interest.

Refer to Islamic Architecture: Form, Function, and Meaning  By Robert Hillenbrand.  See also Brill's Encyclopedia of Islam Pg. 227.
The concept of minarets function as a symbol of supremacism is reinforced by the requirement that dhimmis not build as high as Islamic structures. [Reliance of the Traveller, o11.5(5).]

    I know of no good cause why the citizens of Switzerland should be compelled to allow the Muslims to lord it over them with minarets as symbols of power and supremacy.  If you  click the link to Reliance o11.5 and read the sixth item, you will discover that where Allah's writ runs, Christians are prohibited from displaying  crosses and ringing bells.  Reciprocity anyone?

• Is the ban or restriction discriminatory (in a direct or indirect manner) vis-à-vis specific groups of  the population?    

Who else builds minarets?  Are they really analogous to steeples?

• Is the ban or restriction on the display of religious symbols proportionate to the necessity for security measures by the State concerned?

My view is that this question  applies principally to the issue of banning the niqab.  The impossibility of identifying the wearer creates a security risk in that terrorists and robbers could gain a degree of impunity by cross dressing.  There have been law suits over ID photos taken wearing the niqab.  In that case, the insult to sanity is so obvious as to require no elaboration.

• Is the ban or restriction on the display of religious symbols necessary to uphold the principle  of equality of men and women?

If that is what you are about, you'd better outlaw Islam altogether because the Qur'an clearly states the superiority of men in 4:34 and made women chattel  in 2:223.  Female inferiority is reinforced in  Sahih Bukhari 1.6.301 (deficient in intelligence & religion)..

• Does the ban or restriction take into account the individual freedom to wear or not to wear religious symbols?

If a Muslima wants to wear a hijab, big deal. I see no reason to prohibit it; it does no harm, and, like a skunk's stripes, it serves as a visible warning sign.  The S.R. thinks that  "such questions should be provided by an independent and impartial judiciary and in light of the specific circumstances of each case under
consideration."

    In ¶88, also on pg. 18, the S..R. gets down to the important stuff.

The Special Rapporteur regrets reports of stereotyping which do not contribute to the creation of an environment conducive to constructive and peaceful dialogue among communities. Nonetheless, he recalls that peaceful expressions of opinions and ideas should always be tolerated, as long as they do not fall under the restrictions in articles 19, paragraph 3, and 20¹ of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

• regrets reports of stereotyping

Is it the reports or the stereotyping he regrets?  Presumably its the latter.

• which do not contribute to the creation of an environment conducive to constructive and peaceful dialogue 
• among communities

Conversations take place between individuals, not communities.  We ought to be one community, not Balkanized  enclaves. How could there be a constructive and peaceful dialogue when Islam has declared  and is prosecuting war against us?  Has the S.R. bothered to read the Qur'an & hadith?  [Fight those who... until...]

    Of course, those banners reading "Freedom Go to Hell",  "Islam Will Dominate The World" and "Behead Those Who Insult Islam" contribute greatly to "constructive and peaceful dialogue".  Yeah, right.

    We find ¶89 on page 19 of the report.

The Special Rapporteur distinguishes between stereotyping of religions on one hand and of religious followers or sacred persons on the other. With regard to stereotyping of religious followers and of sacred persons, the Special Rapporteur
recalls that the right to freedom of expression may be restricted in order to protect, inter alia, the rights or reputations of others. However, in accordance with articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, any restrictions on the right to freedom of expressions must be established in law; they must pursue a legitimate aim; and they must be proportional to the aim sought to be achieved. As a result, the Special Rapporteur believes that a very high threshold should be met and that the defamatory expressions targeting individuals must have been proven false before they warrant restrictions and sanctions thereon. Moreover, he recommends that sanctions be of a civil nature only and that fines arising from civil defamation procedures respect the principle of proportionality in order not to have a long-lasting and chilling effect on the right to freedom of expression.

• stereotyping of religious followers

Are they Muslims or ain't they?  Muslims are commanded to obey Allah and his messenger. If they do that, then Allah's imperatives and Moe's sunnah must describe their attitude & conduct.

• in order to protect, inter alia, the rights

Exactly what right would be protected by prohibiting criticism of Islam?  What right is violated when we reveal the fact that Islam is a predator preying on the human race?  What right do we violate when we expose its mercenary mission and martial method?  Would writing about prostitution, drug & bootlegging rackets violate some right of Mafiosi?

• a very high threshold should be met
• defamatory expressions targeting individuals must have been proven false

Should those restrictions apply to the case of Geeert Wilders?  Why was that not mentioned in this report?  Truth is not listed as a possible defense in the Dutch law under which Wilders is being persecuted.

    The issue of stereotyping religions comes up in ¶90.

With regard to stereotyping of religions, he recalls that vigorously interrogating and criticizing religious doctrines and their teachings is thoroughly legitimate and constitutes a significant part of the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion or expression. Therefore, the Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate that domestic blasphemy laws aiming to protect religions per se can prove counterproductive since they could result in de facto censure of robust examination of
religious doctrines and teachings and of inter- and intra-religious criticism. Moreover, the Special Rapporteur received reports that many of these laws afford different levels of protection to different religions and have often proved to be applied in a discriminatory manner. He was informed of numerous examples of persecution of religious minorities or dissenting believers, but also of atheists and non-theists, as a result of legislation on religious offences or overzealous application of laws that may be fairly neutral on the face of it. Consequently, the Special Rapporteur encourages States to move away from the notion of defamation of religions towards the legal concept of advocacy of racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence in order to anchor the debate in the relevant existing international legal framework, and in particular that provided in the  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

• vigorously interrogating ... religious doctrines constitutes a significant part of the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion or expression.

Where does he recall that from?  Is it not self-evident?

• persecution of religious minorities or dissenting believers,

Such as the persecutions in Indonesia & Pakistan?

• advocacy of racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence

Precisely how will you define and measure that abstract concept?  Self-appointed arbiters such as the Secretary General and the HRC² assert that Fitna and the Motoons fit that concept.   In fact, Fitna and the Motoons describe incitement, they do not constitute it.

    ¶91 illustrates the insanity of the basic concept.

Advocacy of racial or religious hatred is a symptom, the external manifestation of something much more profound which is intolerance and bigotry. Intolerance against individuals based on their religion or belief unfortunately continues to be  manifested in different ways. It is therefore critical that States find the most effective ways through which to protect individuals from advocacy of hatred and violence by others. While legislative responses have often been relied on by States to respond to  these phenomena, they are far from being sufficient to bring about real changes in mindsets, perceptions and discourse. Indeed, tackling the root causes of manifestations of religious intolerance affecting individual’s human rights requires a much broader set of policy measures, for example in the areas of education, awareness-raising and interreligious and intercultural dialogue. The Special Rapporteur therefore strongly recommends that States put a strong emphasis on a  broad range of preventive measures which aim at fostering a peaceful society where, inter alia, freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief may be fully exercised by all individuals.

• Advocacy of racial or religious hatred is a symptom, the external manifestation of something much more profound which is intolerance and bigotry.

The Preface to the  Second Edition of the Calcutta Qur'an Petition  lists the numerous ayat which inspire hatred of non-Muslims. Faithful Muslims who go to the Mosque to pray curse us  17 times each day.  That is what they are doing when they recite the first Surah of the Qur'an, they are reminding Allah why he wants to burn us who "earned his wrath" and  "went astray".

• advocacy of hatred and violence

    Get a clue, for Chrissake!!! "Fight them", Fight those who" and "  9:123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2). are the real incitement to violence.  Moe gave the believers an example to emulate: "I am  ordered to fight".

• a peaceful society where ... freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief may be fully exercised by all individuals

The S.R. just described a world without Islam.  Sorry, sucker, there is no religious freedom in Islam.  The penalty for apostasy is death!

08.0 APOSTASY FROM ISLAM (RIDDA)
(0: Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief
(kufr) and the worst. It may come about
through sarcasm, as when someone is told, "Trim
your nails, it is sunna," and he replies, "I would
not do it even if it were," as opposed to when some
circumstance exists which exonerates him of having
committed apostasy, such as when his tongue
runs away with him, or when he is quoting someone,
or says it out of fear.)
08.1 When a person who has reached puberty
and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he
deserves to be killed.
08.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the
caliph (A: or his representative) to ask him to
repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is
accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is
immediately killed.

   
    To comprehend the full enormity of that which the OIC seeks to impose upon us through the HRC & GA resolutions which they are seeking to insert into ICERD through a binding protocol, you need to delve further into Shari'ah.  O8.7  contains a list of 20 acts and attitudes which entail apostasy. Any negative statement about  Allah or Moe; any reviling or expression of doubt about Islam or denial of any part of the Qur'an gets a Muslim killed.  

    That same list of prohibitions is applied to dhimmis by extension. O11.5 lists legal and social restrictions on dhimmis.    O11.10 lists acts which violate the treaty of protection, subjecting the dhimmi who commits them to immediate execution.  Pay special attention to the fifth item in the list: :"(5) or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam. ".

011. IO The agreement is also violated (A: with
respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated
that any of the following things break it, and
one of the suhjects does so anyway. though if the
state has not stipulated that these break the agreement,
then they do not; namely, if one of the subject
people:
(1) commits adultery with a Muslim woman
or marries her:
(2) conceals spies of hostile forces;
(3) leads a Muslim away from Islam;
(4) kills a Muslim;
(5) or mentions something impermissible
about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and
give him peace), or Islam.

    Because it inculcates hatred & incites violence, the intolerant war cult can not be tolerated.  Nor can we tolerate having its blasphemy laws imposed upon us.  We must rise up and raise  loud objections while we are still able to do so without being fined and imprisoned for  defending our lives and  liberty.  For this reason I exhort all lovers of life and liberty to sign the  International Qur'an Petition, copy it, paste it into an email and send it to everyone you can hope to influence with an exhortation to sign and forward it.

---

1. 
   

Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of
public health or morals.

Article 20
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law..

2.   7. Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly
   associated with human rights violations and terrorism and, in this regard, regrets the laws or
   administrative measures specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities,
   thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination they experience;  [¶'5-7 of the pdf. The reference to the Motoons is obvious!]

Sphere: Related Content

Facebook Advocacy

An old post about a Muslim boycott of Facebook  demanding the  deletion of the Koran Toilet Paper Roll group still gets hits more than half a year after the boycott.  The group was pulled down, briefly restored and permanently deleted.

.Now two new pages have been created.  Everybody Burn Quran Day rapidly grew to 1974 followers.  It is evident that a fair proportion of those followers are Muslims who joined  so that they could comment on the wall posts.  The discussion threads have also been spammed by Muslims.

    Their plan is to commemorate the accursed abomination by burning  Qur'ans on September 11.  I hope that everyone will read it before burning it.  Only by reading the Qur'an can we discover the evil  enshrined between its covers.

    Several of their wall posts promote another new page:  I bet this 'Toilet paper' can get more fans than 'The Quran' which has 737 followers. Their wall is full of insulting, obscene and antisemitic statements and images posted by Muslims.

    International Burn A Koran Day, sponsored by the Dove World Church,  has 1740 followers.  Its wall is littered with Islamic graffiti.   This one is certain to increase in controversy as the summer heats up.

    Islamophobia  appears to be a new page with only 11 followers. Its name would lead one to expect  criticism of Islam's critics. Instead, the avatar is a photo of violent Islamic protest signs.  The wall posts include a video calling for termination of Islamic immigration  and another about the recent arrest of Christian missionaries in Dearborn.

    Against Islamophobia Worldwide (AIW) with 2727 members, appears to be tightly policed; I did not see any anti-Islamic postings on their wall.  When I clicked the Older Posts link at the bottom of the page, I found two posts advocating boycotting Israel. One more click lead to these wall posts. Click them to view full size images.




Evidently my guess about banning dissenters was correct, and they want another group I like to be "erased" .

   NO TO THE MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO has 60,240 supporters. I am one of  them because the planned Mosque is a symbol of Islamic triumph & supremacy.

    Come now, and let us reason together is a new group dedicated to rational exchange, without mindless bashing. It has grown to 63 members including two Muslims. 

Sphere: Related Content

Annual Islamophobia Report #3

Organization of the Islamic Conference: Accommodating Sharia  Gates of Vienna 27 July 2010, By Baron Bodissey; found in Europe News, via Google Alert.

        That excellent article is centered on the 74 page  3rd OIC observatory report on Islamophobia (May 2009 to April 2010  which covers the period from May '09 to April '10.

    General Secretary Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu's Forward, at the end of page 5,  provides the first veiled threat.

Distortion of Islam geared towards denigrating and dehumanizing Muslims insults the deep
seated religious feelings and violates their fundamental rights and dignity thus threatening the
multicultural fabric of the societies. Such stereotyping leads to discrimination and violence
defying justification on both political as well as economic grounds. It poses grave and
multidimensional challenges to global as well as regional peace, security and stability. The
situation merits a concerted effort on the part of the international community to evolve norms
that would underwrite, promote and protect interfaith and inter-communal understanding,
respect and harmony.

    Note the loaded language with which the first sentence begins. "Distortion of Islam geared towards denigrating and dehumanizing Muslims" .  Turn back momentarily to the first paragraph:  where disturbing events are listed.

the continuing saga of insulting and provocative publications like the reprinting of the cartoons,

How do the Motoons distort Islam? They depicted Moe as a terrorist; does that distort Islam?  Allah said "I will cast terror".  Allah cast terror, resulting in death, enslavement and dispossession.  Moe said "I have been made victorious with terror".  The motoons depict Moe as bomb carrying a terrorist.  He never carried a bomb, because explosives were invented after his death.  But he was, by his own admission, a terorist. If he had no bombs, how did Moe terrorize?  By his demon, and his spear; he built a terrible reputation. Lets take a brief Qur'anic review.  [Emphasis added.]

8:12. ...I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes....

8:57. ... punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson.

8:60. ...Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies...

59:2. ... Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).

59:13. Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allah - Islamic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Bani An-Nadir) breasts than Allah. ...

 
The message of the Motoons, though exaggerated, as most editorial cartoons are, is essentially true: Moe was a terrorist; terrorism is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam.  The Motoons do not distort Islam, they reflect the technological changes of the last 1387 years.

    Are the Motoons "geared towards denigrating and dehumanizing Muslims"?  No, they only depict terrorists as the evil entities they are.  If Muslims  feel denigrated and dehumanized, it is only because they are in sympathy with the terrorists who obey Allah and emulate his Profit.

    How does accurately depicting Moe as a terrorist violate the rights and dignity of Muslims?  Is there a right to be shielded from criticism of their superstition? What of our dignity and rights which are entirely denied by Islam? Their tender religious sensibilities are hurt.  What of the religious sensibilities of Christians?   The Qur'an denies Christ's paternity, divinity, crucifixion, death & resurrection besides co-opting Christ as a genocidal warlord. How is it permissible  to denigrate & defame our Lord, but punishable by law to  attach the terrorist label to Moe?

    The loaded language continues, carried over from recent U.N. resolutions.
"Such stereotyping leads to discrimination and violence defying justification on both political as well as economic grounds."

Strongly condemns all manifestations and acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and migrants and the stereotypes often applied to them, including on the basis of religion or belief, and urges all States to apply and, where applicable, reinforce existing laws when such xenophobic or intolerant acts, manifestations or expressions occur, in order to eradicate impunity for those who commit xenophobic and racist acts;

    What is the connection between exposing the evil doctrines of Islam and  violence?  Did the Motoons suggest that Muslims should be assaulted ?  Did the video Fitna  include incitement to violence other than that in the Qur'an and the ravings of the Imams depicted therein?  Who actually shot & stabbed people and burned buildings in riots stirred up in the Mosques at Juma Salat?

  Now we have wended our way to the thinly veiled threat. " It poses grave and multidimensional challenges to global as well as regional peace," What really poses a challenge to peace?  The true threat to peace flows from the Qur'an's injunctions to permanent warfare, contained in 8:39 & 9:29.  It is ratified by Moe's declaration that he was "commanded to fight".  It is codified in Shari'ah:  "The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians :..., "The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim"... .

    The last sentence in that paragraph from the forward exposes the OIC's tactical objective: "The situation merits a concerted effort on the part of the international community to evolve norms that would underwrite, promote and protect interfaith and inter-communal understanding, respect and harmony."
They demand, in the UNHRC, its Ad Hoc Committee on Elaboration of Contemporary Standards and the General Assembly, that all criticism of Islam be criminalized.  Each year they ram through two non binding resolutions condemning "defamation of religions". In November, the committee meets again to work on a legally binding protocol to ICERD.

    Existing human rights covenants have unenforced provisions which require that Islam be proscribed by law because its canon of scripture  incites war and genocide besides violating the right to life.  It is up to us to remind the World Court of its duty to enforce those provisions.  I urge you to sign, promote and publicize the  International Qur'an Petition.  That petition is all that stands between our liberties and the OIC .  We must use it!

    On page ten, in the context of the executive summary, they state their vision and recommendations.  Three points in their nine point list require close attention.

Western countries should prohibit by law, publishing or uttering of matters that grossly
abuse or insult matters held sacred by any religion or stereotype its followers.
Discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnicity, and religion should also be prohibited by
law;

That is a repetition of the demand that all criticism of Islam be outlawed.  If we can not name and shame the enemy which attacked  us and continues to threaten further attacks,  then, in the words of George Washington:   “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

Hate crimes should be defined broadly and the information deficit must be addressed;

Broadly defined legislation is the worst enemy of  liberty.  That is an Islamic attempt to establish their tyranny.

Younger generations should be provided with educational programs that would foster
tolerance, understanding and respect to “the other”;

If any sentient person understands Islam, he will not tolerate it. The OIC demands that our children be indoctrinated with Islamic hagiography to render them intellectually defenseless.  That is the opposite of education, it is a tool of enslavement.

Sphere: Related Content

Islamophobia: the CAIR Sampler

Barenaked Islam posted a CAIR video featuring audio clips critical of Islam, labeling them Islamophobia. Barenaked Islam exploits the definition of Islamophobia.

It isn't Islamophobia when they really ARE trying to kill you.

Phobia means irrational fear. Since the death of thousands nearly nine years ago, we know that fear of Islam is rational.

Those who have sampled Islam's canon of scripture, tradition, biography, exegesis and jurisprudence know that revulsion is a rational reaction to Islamic doctrine & practice.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6REJbJvoQ7Y&feature=player_embedded

The video is entitled "Islamophobia A growing problem". What is problematic? A slowly growing segment of our society is becoming aware of Islam, the hatred it inculcates and the violence it sanctifies and incites.

CAIR does not want us to know that Islam is intrinsically violent; that it has declared and is prosecuting war and subversion against us.

The unspoken subtext is "Islamophobia" breeds intolerance, contempt and assault". Intolerance of the intolerable is a good thing. Islam can not be tolerated because it is intolerant, supremacist and genocidally aggressive.

Knowing the truth about Islam and Muslims, awareness of the fact that we need to get rid of them does not imply assault, murder or arson. Those acts are crimes in our society, and offenders are prosecuted. Reasonable people are not advocating murdering Muslims or bombing Mosques. We advocate outlawing Islam, closing the Mosques and deporting the Muslims for our protection and the preservation of our way of life.

The video begins with a clip from a Dan Fanelli campaign spot. The narrator says "Rising Islamophobia in our nation endangers the rights of American Muslims and creates unjustified fear and hostility towards Islam."

What rights are endangered? How are they endangered? Is there a right not to be recognized as a threat to our system of government and way of life?

Able bodied adult male Muslims who are not indebted nor enslaved are bound by a "religious obligation" classified as fard al-kifaya, to engage in attacks against nearby disbelievers. That obligation is specified in Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9.1.

The second segment begins with this heading "U.S. Senator James Inhofe advocating profiling of Middle Eastern men when speaking at a Senate hearing. "

The clip shows the Senator saying "I believe in racial and ethnic profiling."

CAIR is attacking common sense. All of the recent Islamic terror attacks were perpetrated by young Muslim males. Anyone not suspicious of young men from areas of the world where Islam predominates is several cards short of a full deck.

When it comes to Islamic terrorism, Muslims are the natural prime suspects. Lets solve this problem by excluding all Muslims from all mass transit.

Congresswoman Sue Myrick is up next "there are people who literally are willing to blow themselves up like this guy did--to commit jihad because they believe in a bigger cause and that cause is what they want to do to us: they want to destroy western democracies, they want to bring down America, they want us to live by their rules."

CAIR's objection to her honest statement of fact speaks volumes about CAIR and about Islam.

Next we are treated to a sign, outside the Dove World Church, which says "Islam is of the devil.". The narrator says "Anti-Islam rhetoric has become more explicit and more extreme since the 9/11 attacks."

No mention of relevance or veracity, just how explicit and extreme it is. We are to assume that Islam and Christianity share a common deity since both are monotheistic. If there is only one deity, they must be the same. But "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son...". Contrast that with Allah, who rubbed Adam's shoulders to produce one group of people for the fire and another for Paradise. In Surah al-Anfal 67, Allah told Moe that he could not hold captives for ransom until he had "made a great slaughter". He said Moe wanted booty, but Allah wanted to get Moe into Paradise. Does the Christian God require genocide? If the Dove World Church believes and wants to tell the world that Allah is demonic, that is their right, ain't it?

Next we have Congressman Peter King saying "Unfortunately, we have too many Mosques in this country, there is too many people sympathetic to radical Islam, we should be looking at them more carefully. "

I view that as a rare episode of candor, of which we need more, not less. CAIR views it as "Islamophobia".

The narrator says "anti-Islam views expressed by elected officials, can severely impact the ability of American Muslims to engage in the positive civic participation that is every American's right.". That statement comes over the image of Geert Wilders speaking at an American synagogue.

"Admit that Islam is not a religion, admit that Islam is a totalitarian ideology, in other words, the rights to religious freedom do not apply to the totalitarian ideology called Islam."

That is a pretty tough admission to make, and, to the best of my knowledge, no American elected officials have made it.

The fact is that Islam is not a religion; it is a way of life: intra-species predation. Islam's religious component serves as a control mechanism to motivate Muslims to go to war and as a camouflage to prevent us from recognizing it as a predator.

The caption for the next segment is "Right-wing commentator Ann Coulter". She says: "I said we are at war with all these fanatics and we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.".

Ann just told you why we are losing in Afghanistan & Iraq: they are still Muslim. That is a fatal fact, too hot for most to suggest, far to hot for politicians to state explicitly.

Next up: "Christian televangelist Pat Robertson", who cuts loose with this classic remark. "...then if the religion involves beheading infidels and pouring boiling oil down their throats"....

Islam is not a religion, but it does involve beheading infidels, as we saw in the case of Nick Berg and others. The boiling oil comes later, after we arrive in the Hell fire. But the decapitation is commanded in Surah al-anfal 12.

Pastor Rod Parsley is up next. "Islam is an anti-Christ religion that intends through violence to conquer the world."

Horrible! Pastor Parsley confused deen with religion, which is only part of the deen. We see Islamic advertisements that claim Jesus Christ as a "Prophet of Islam". But those advertisements do not tell us that, according to their scripture, Jesus was not crucified, did not die and was not resurrected. Nor do they tell us that he will return to lead the Muslims in battle and the final genocide against us. Lying is as much by what they conceal as what they dissemble.

Franklin Gaham is up next. "True Islam can not be practiced in this country. You can't beat your wife, you cannot murder your children if you think they have committed adultery or something like that, which they do practice in some..."

True, Islam does permit wife beating and honoricide. It also permits having as many as four wives at once. It permits a Muslim to divorce his wife by saying "I divorce you" three times. All of those things are contrary to American law.

Next up, saving the best for next to last, we have Pamela Geller, among signs endorsing liberty, memorializing the slain and condemning Codoba House, telling it as it is.

"This is an insult, it is demeaning, this is humiliating, that you would build a shrine to the very ideology that inspired the attacks of 9/11".

Geller is followed by a man I do not recognize saying "This house of evil will be the birthplace of the next terrorist event."

Perhaps, but the plot could, and likely will be hatched somewhere else. But the fact remains, that in every Mosque, Jews and Christians are cursed five times every day when they recite the first Surah of the Qur'an as part of their prayers. Fifteen Muslims died in a Mosque in Afghanistan when the bomb they were building detonated prematurely.

Our narrator returns. "Whether it is anti-Muslim commentators, extremist religious leaders, Muslim bashing politicians or fear mongering dvds sent to millions of American homes, Islam and the American Muslim community are being targeted by hate and intolerance. But with your help, Islamophobia can be challenged and overcome through education and understanding. "

The wise gentlemen who founded this nation gave us something most of the world lacks: the right of free inquiry and expression. we are free to investigate institutions and issues; free to share what we learn. Our founders knew that the right to accurate criticism of government policy and candidates for office is an absolute requirement for the preservation of liberty. If we can not identify threats to our liberty and accurately describe them, we can not preserve liberty.

Islam presents a clear, proximate & persistent threat to our liberty. Islam, through the offices of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, seeks to criminalize all criticism of Islam. Islamic law forbids, under penalty of death, the reviling of Allah, Moe & Islam. If you are a conquered Christian living in Egypt or Pakistan, any negative statement ab out Islam, true or not, gets you tortured and killed.

Every year, they ram "defamation of religion" resolutions through the UNHRC & General Assembly. Those resolutions specifically condemn and demand the criminalization of all association of Islam & terrorism. Casting terror is sanctified by 3:151 and commanded by 8:12. It is exemplified by 33:26-27. Moe bragged about it, as recorded in Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220. If they get their way, they'll be able to fine me and throw me in prison for publishing this fatal fact.

In November, the Ad Hoc Committee for the Elaboration of Contemporary Standards will meet again to formulate their proposed protocol to ICERD. The protocol will have the force of law, trumping the First Amendment. We absolutely must stop those fiends from stifling free speech! We must rise up as one, disrespectfully demanding the preservation of our hard won rights. Once lost, recovering those rights will be a difficult, bloody, costly and probably impossible quest.

It is a little know fact that unenforced provisions of ICERD, ICCPR & \CPPCG require that Islam be proscribed by law. We need to obtain enforcement of those human rights covenants before Islam can modify them to use against us. We have one instrument we can use:

International Qur'an Petition

For the love of liberty, sign that petition, copy it, paste it into an email and send it to everyone you can influence. Urge the recipients to sign and forward it. Make it go viral. Put a link to it on your blog or web site. If you won't do that, you don't value your life and liberty enough to deserve them.


It was not without good reason that Moe warned his companions not to carry the Qur'an into Dar ul-harb .

Malik's Muwatta Book 21, Number 21.2.7:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar said that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade travelling with a Qur'an in the land of the enemy. Malik commented, "That is out of fear that the enemy will get hold of it."

They need to make it illegal to criticize Islam. We need to stop them.
What's Wrong With Islam/Muslims.chm contains what you need to know about Islam, the documentation of the facts revealed above.

• Ad Hoc Committee On Compelmentary standards (126.1K pdf) Compiled from a series of blog posts about a proposed protocol to ICERD which will criminalize all criticism of Islam. The cmte meets from Oct. 19-30 '09 to write the protocol.
• Ad Hoc Cmte On Complementary Stds 125KB pdf compiled from several blog posts.
• Ad Hoc Cmte Draft Document 120KB pdf containing Google's Translation of the French language draft plus links to references and blog posts.
• “Defamation” Resolutions: Restricted Liberty Impaired Rights 01/04/10 Several excellent articles have been written about the (unintended?) consequences of the UN’s resolutions Combating Defamation of Religions. Now two courageous writers have added a new dimension to the discussion by generalizing about the consequences on the ground and naming the prime offender.
• Combating Defamation of Religions: the Substance 12/20/09 The final form of the resolution.
• Defamation || Negative Stereotyping 11/05/09 What's the difference?!
• Defamation of Religions Draft 10-29-09 Link to and dissection of the new resolution plus extensive links to previous resolutions & related documents.

Sphere: Related Content

Anti-Muslim Bigotry

A new post at Barenaked Islam pointed to two articles accusing Islam's opponents of bigotry.

Michelle Boorstein asks at the Washington Post: How influential will anti-Muslim groups become?

For years there has been a small but passionate group of people concerned with the influence of Islam, and their activism seemed to be largely focused on blogging and lobbying political conservatives. But their presence -- and the arguments they raise -- seem to be coming into the broader sphere of late.

The author cites the controversy over the Cordoba House project and Paypal's censorship of Atlas Shrugs. The Salon article she links to shouts "racially-motivated hatred" in its headline.

The entire anti-mosque campaign isn't about anything other than pure, paranoid Islamophobia.

The article closes with a short story about two Arab Christians who were allegedly driven away from a recent protest of Cordoba House in N.Y.C. Atlas Shrugs posted a communication from one of the Arab Cristians involved in that incident. Here is one paragraph from that communication.

The reason I am writing to you, is because I am very disappointed in the mainstream media who used this minor incident to make a blanket generalization about all the attendees of the rally as Muslim haters.This kind of generalization was unfair to the good American people who legitimately stand against the building of a mosque next to ground zero and who are against Islamist agenda in the US. I am very well aware of such an agenda which has destroyed the Christian and Jewish existence in the Middle East.

Now you know what theose smug, smarmy left wingers are doing to pull the woll over your eyes.

The REAL News Network posted a video of two academics making the usual smarmy, self-righteous denunciation of "bigotry". Note their loaded title:

How Western anti-Muslim bigotry became respectable.

According to them, the Islamic conquest and occupation of Southern & Eastern Europe was the greatest thing before sliced bread. It produced a wonderful culture of architecture, infrastructure and academia. They don't give a damn about the slaugher, enslavement or burning of churches and monestaries. Oh, no, those are minor, inconsequential incidents.

According to the Socialist narrative, all opposition to Islam is bigotry; Islamophobia. It is evidence of paranoia. Their narrative is false and malignant. An estimated 270*10⁶ people were slaughtered by Islam since 622. The slaughter of Hundus and the Armenian & Assyrian genocides flow directly from the foundational texts of Islam.

Genocide

Allah's divine word includes these gems of genocidal bestiality. Denial is not a river in Egypt. You can not disprove objective factual reality.

8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

47:4. So, when you meet (in fight Jihâd in Allâh's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islâm), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allâh to continue in carrying out Jihâd against the disbelievers till they embrace Islâm (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection], but if it had been Allâh's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allâh, He will never let their deeds be lost,

The differential desires of Moe and Allah are clear from the phrases which I emphasized with bold font. Moe wanted ransom, Allah wants great slaughter, killed and wounded many of them. I linked the Surah:ayeh numbers to a table of ten parallel translations so that you can verify the obvious meaning of the quotes.

Of course, it could not possibly mean that, could it. No, those verses must be metaphorical or allegorical. Yeah, right. Ibn Kathir explained them in
The Command to strike the Enemies' Necks, tighten Their Bonds, and then free Them either by an Act of Grace or for a Ransom.

(until you have fully defeated them,) meaning, `you have killed and utterly destroyed them.'

It appears that this Ayah was revealed after the battle of Badr. At that time, Allah reproached the believers for sparing many of the enemy's soldiers, and holding too many captives in order to take ransom from them.

Surely those are anachronisms, long since expired. Yeah, right.

(There will always be a group of my Ummah victorious upon the truth, until the last of them fight against Ad-Dajjal.)

jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist). Sunan Abu Dawud 14.2526

So, where is my proof? My proof is in another hadith collected by Abu Dawud. Read it carefully, paying particular attention to the parts I emphasized.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4390:

Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

Had Atiyya reached puberty, he would have been slaughtered, he would not have survived to narrate that saying. When the Banu Qurayzah surrendered, Moe had their men and adolescent boys slaughtered. The estimates run between 700 and 900 decapitations in that incident. And they are not finished yet. Muslims can not open the gates of Paradise until they complete the genocide of the Jews.

Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6985:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

Genocide is not only a divine imperative, it is sunah, an example for future genrations of Muslims to emulate. Now let us examine the consequence of the codification of that divine imperative and exemplary conduct. I quote from CPPCG.

Article 3

The following acts shall be punishable:

(a) Genocide;

(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;

(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

(d ) Attempt to commit genocide;

(e) Complicity in genocide.

Article 3(c) of the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide requires that Islam be proscribed by law. Other standing violations of international human rights covenants which require the proscription of Islam are documented in Islam vs Human Rights.

Islam is intolerant; 3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers. In 9:29, it declares perpetual war on Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians.

The current contrempts center around Ground Zero, where Muslims seek to erect a Mosque in the Burlignton Coat Factory outlet, as a symbol of superiority. There is a little secret most Amaericans are unaware of. Islamic law forbids conquered Christians from building or maintianing churches. The quote is from a list of seven restrictions on dhimmis found in Reliance of the Traveller, Book O11.5.

-7- and are forbidden to build new churches. http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO11-5.html

We have ample cause for objecting to Islam's violence, supremacism, intolerance, terrorism & genocide. Our objection is not bigotry nor is it racism; Islam is a predatory way of life, not a race.

Sphere: Related Content

Provocative Quotes from OIC

One of my Google Alerts triggered on a post at tree hugger. The article consisted of a list of OIC statements whose source was listed as CNS News.
When I followed the link, I found an article dated May 24 and titled "Islamic Nations Praise Obama’s Outreach and U.S. Plans to Close ‘Islamophobia Prison’ at Guantanamo".

It appears that the source of the guff is the OIC's annual Islamophobia Report. I confess that I had only skimmed it, without giving it close attention. The report is a 74 page pdf file.

The first provocative quote comes from page 27 of the report.

Defamation of Islam as well as personalities and symbols sacred to Islam and Muslims as well as other religions is a matter of grave concern to the OIC.

As if they are poised on the edge of the grave, ready to fall in. Muslim rulers are concerned about criticism of Islam because they know that that the cult is false, contrived for a mercenary purpose, contrary to right religion, logic and human rights. If Islam is fully exposed, resulting in mass apostasy, their satrapies and their lives would be at risk.

Gratuitous inclusion of personalities sacred to other religions adds immeasurably to the insult. Islam denies the paternity, deity, crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To cap it off, Islam co-opts Jesus as a genocidal warlord who will "fight the people for the cause of Islam". When Islam points a finger at their critics, four fingers point back at Islam.

On page 27, they expose their intentions.

OIC believes that the International Human Rights Law is not static but evolutionary in nature.
The existing international legal infrastructure, therefore, needs to be evaluated and evolved in
the interest of combating Islamophobia and defamation of all religions in an effective manner.

How can immunity from criticism for Islam be a human right? Human rights apply to individuals, not to groups; not to ideologies. Phobia implies irrational fear. Is it irrational to fear a war cult that has slaughtered 270*10⁶ people in the last 1387 years?

The OIC also appeals to argumentum ad numerum, a logical fallacy.

The safe-passage of the resolution, voted by a majority of states beyond the OIC membership, at each of the three venues
lends international legitimacy to the concept of defamation of religions.

Examine the recent trend in HRC votes on the annual resolutions. If the number of votes conferred legitimacy, it would seem to be declining.



Taking on Islamophobia from another angle, they corrupt our language.

It is indeed a contemporary form of racism whereby the faith and beliefs of
Muslims are denigrated and demonized with all that it entails in terms of adverse impact on
their dignity and identity.

Islam is a war cult, a predatory way of life, not a race. It originated in Arabia, but was spread by the sword into Africa, Asia and Europe. Our objection to Islam is not based on race, it is based on Islam's assertion of a divine right and mandate to rape, pillage, plunder and enslave us until we join them. For the doubters & dissenters, I offer a piece of evidence similar to the barbarian response to Jefferson & Adams when they asked by what right the Barbary Pirates attacked us.

Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master." Sahih Bukhari 4.53.386

Take a look at what they say on page 15 about our government's policy.

At the policy level – with more substantive implications in terms of the international discourse
on combating Islamophobia – the criticism leveled by the US Administration on the OIC
proposed legally binding instrument was not in line with the expectations raised by promise of
engagement in the Cairo speech by President Obama. In October 26, 2009 the U.S. State
Department released its Annual Report on International Religious Freedom. It was critical of what
it said were international efforts to limit free speech in the name of combating defamation of
religion, criticizing the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) for pushing such antidefamation
measures in U.N. bodies. It said the broad anti-defamation measures being sought by
the OIC would have the effect of curbing debate about religious issues and should be discarded
in favor of outreach and government defense of religious freedom and free speech. In its
Executive Summary10, the Report stated: “…the wide spectrum of efforts to undermine the right to
religious freedom extends to multilateral, regional, and global fora. For instance, over the past
decade, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)…has worked through the United Nations
(UN) to advance the concept of "defamation of religions"…the United States…do not agree with the
"defamation of religions" concept because it is inconsistent with the freedoms of religion and
expression.”

A positive response by the US to the OIC’s call for engagement towards evaluating and evolving
norms towards combating Islamophobia – with particular reference to defamation of religions –
would constitute a positive step forward in terms of backing President Obama’s words with
action.

It appears that President Obama's obeisance created false expectations. Our Constitution forbids the making of any law abridging the freedom of speech. The reason for that amendment should be obvious to everyone. Free speech is necessary to preserve freedom. We must be able to criticize corrupt or ineffective government. We must be free to criticize proposed legislation. We must also be free to identify and discuss threats to our lives and liberties.

Islam is a real, proximate and continuing existential threat. An Islamic attack on our soil nine years ago killed 3000 people and caused billions of dollars in economic loss. Because of our First Amendment, we can not be arrested, fined and imprisoned for revealing the damnable doctrines of Islam. We need to preserve our First Amendment rights.

Sphere: Related Content